On the grounds that I don't think she (or anyone else) has the legal, moral or intellectual right to prevent people from discussing content via video response.
We've established that. I was inquiring mostly about what you seem to believe the "legal" part entails -- Youtube apparently disagrees -- and what possible moral or intellectual reasons anyone but whiny butthurt toddlers need to respond
directly to the video rather than, say, post their video responses on their own channel anyway.
Yeah, great. Where have I said it's ok for people to send her death threats?
You certainly seem to think the rape and death threats of a few are less important than the ***-devastation of others. The fact you keep trying to pick at the proverbial everyone else who will offer her non-threatening comments while conveniently ignoring the people who have -- and they shouldn't have happened
at all -- is really gross. I think you're underestimating what threats like those mean for women, as opposed to if someone sends something to a man saying he's going to be raped if he keeps posting things.
(Disclaimer: Men do get raped, it's an underreported crime, etc., etc., covering all my bases here. But it is largely a crime against women, so I'm sticking with that for now.)
You don't need to look hard to find much wrong with her videos. I haven't at any point discussed Sarkeesian's approaches to comments I don't think. Her pro-censorship mewings are what I've been commenting on.
Hey, I've got a small selection of things I think she could've done better, too, but you're one of the only ones in the thread who keeps trying to argue all of her wrongs and brush off anything of hers that might have basis in truth -- ergo, a bone to pick. With what, probably the feminism part, I don't know.
You claim that her disabling of comments is censorship, that something in her videos is censorship, or both? The former is
her prerogative to, you know, preserve integrity and not get a ton of hateful and threatening responses. Someone mentioned she had the channel open before closing it -- clearly she thought it was doing more harm than good at that point.
How is that censorship? You can't tell me you'd seriously leave a comment venue you had power over that was receiving a lot of very real death threats (and hell, let's throw in rape threats, regardless of the fact you're male) open for people to continue lashing at you over the content you post.
It sounds more like censorship is being used as a buzzword here, and that the people handling this by attacking her outright are the ones who ruined it for the class. She isn't morally or legally obligated to allow people to send her threats, and that you think she is is absurd and flat-out wrong. It's the same concept as someone on a blogging website disabling comments after they get nothing but inflammatory remarks or trolls -- perhaps infuriating for people on the other side of the coin, but completely within their rights to do so.
You literally cannot believe it? Literally? You literally cannot believe it?
Okay, the rest of your post was ridiculous, but at least fair in tone.
This is downright patronizing. Do not talk to me like a ****ing child, thanks.